Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

Thanks for your post. I do understand that perspective. But you have to understand people that believe in Anarchism do so predicated with the belief
people are inherently good and not wicked. The way you described it essentially says if 'State' was removed only chaos could result. As of course
would be the result if man's natural inclination was bad. I don't believe that. As for some of the specific faults of human nature you outlined, I
don't see how those concerns are not equally applicable to the current system. Surely we see it manifest in the world today?

“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the
visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence
on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered,
wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites
undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into
submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful
possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion
of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals
for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the
necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a
conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin
forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
― Emma Goldman

Thanks for your post. I do understand that perspective. But you have to understand people that believe in Anarchism do so predicated with the belief
people are inherently good and not wicked. The way you described it essentially says if 'State' was removed only chaos could result. As of course
would be the result if man's natural inclination was bad. I don't believe that. As for some of the specific faults of human nature you outlined, I
don't see how those concerns are not equally applicable to the current system. Surely we see it manifest in the world today?

Man's natural inclination is certainly "bad". It's also very good. Everyone of sentient age has committed acts they believe to be "wrong". Man's
nature is very much a mixed bag, and while I don't believe anyone intends to be wicked we are all still capable of great wickedness because of the
true nature of evil. True evil lives in all of us in the form of the ability for the ultimate self-deception; to believe that our actions are
always justified. To believe that this justification gives us carte blanche because we just know that the ends justify the means. To
believe that we are so inherently good that we cannot be wrong; that we cannot be wicked. Evil men never think they are evil, and the
underpinning of this is the core problem with human nature.

Absolutely we see it present in the world today, and it is very applicable to many current systems of governance. That's why we attempt to
find balance between competing interests and ideologies in western societies. The only way to combat our nature is to accept it and put systems in
place that don't allow our inherent demons to get the best of us (by this I mean things like term limits and judicial review). It is, like us, an
imperfect system.

“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the
visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence
on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered,
wounded, and maimed?

I clipped the quote for brevity, but the main problem with it is that it employs a tautology: the premise necessitates the conclusion. Perhaps when
the shackles of religion are no longer on mankind then our apparent (whether it's "true" or not is a bit of a red herring) nature will be much
improved, but now (or the near future) is definitely not that time and we cannot say if it would be improved enough. That leaves this in the
realm of utopianism, at least for the present time.

Here's the more pragmatic argument. You stated that "[according to my worldview] if 'State' was removed only chaos could result". I wouldn't state
it like that. I would say that if you "removed the State" a new one would automatically form, and having relinquished all possible "control" you
would be powerless to prevent it.

There are only two world views that believe the nature of man is evil, and there fore need
objective absolute moral law to straighten man out: Theism and Deism.
The remainder of world views see the nature of man as good.

Theism and deism therefore believe in objective absolute moral law.
Just like the laws of science are absolute, and objective.
Just like the laws of logic or math are objective and absolute.

There are only two world views that believe the nature of man is evil, and there fore need
objective absolute moral law to straighten man out: Theism and Deism.
The remainder of world views see the nature of man as good.

Theism and deism therefore believe in objective absolute moral law.
Just like the laws of science are absolute, and objective.
Just like the laws of logic or math are objective and absolute.

Why can not the nature of man be both good and evil at the same time? That seems more inline with my experience of reality (although I could be
wrong).

Side note: Non-theist (including deism) world views can also espouse objective morality -- a supernatural source isn't a requisite.

If human nature is good, then the objective (read morals) laws are not necessary.
If human nature is bad, then the objective laws are necessary.
Only those with self disciplined choice will follow them.

there is good in the worst and bad in the best person.
overall the human nature is evil and bad.

If there is good in the worst person then there is obviously much more good in the best person. The average of all people will thus always contain
good.

Therefore human nature must be at least partially good. This doesn't conflict with your conclusion unless you meant that "overall the human nature
is exclusively evil and bad".

My premise then still stands: Human nature is both good and evil.

I wouldn't presume to suggest that one is dominate over the other. In fact, I assert that it's not logically possible to know that because you can
not know the moral composition of every single living person.

basic human nature is evil.
look at an infant.
unless the infant has external
intervention they will continue
to be a tyrant.

Well, we're pretty out in the weeds here but … I do not accept your assertion that an infant will always become a "tyrant" without external
intervention. On what basis do you make this claim? It's a fairly bold assertion, do you have evidence of some type that suggests abandoned infants
are irrevocably doomed to evil?

basic human nature is evil.

and good.

now when you start discussing actions that people take
the actions can be good or bad.
good actions will be the result of following an externally
imposed objective ruler or set of values/morals.

I similarly reject your assertion that "good actions will be the result of following an externally imposed objective ruler or set of values/morals".
I don't reject the objectiveness, only that it necessarily be external. Why can I not form my own internal value system, over time, based on my
experience of the world? This experience includes important external influences like caregivers and mentors; thus I don't mean that the synthesis has
no external sources. Certainly such a value system will be highly similar to others in my environment due to natural law (humans almost always possess
a natural sense of empathy, socialization necessitates value-sharing, etc) -- in fact, core components of it will be completely universal. In other
words: objective.

bad actions are the result of rejection of the objective code of rules and
merely responding to the internal "natural" trends, tendencies and traits.

I think we basically agree on that, as long as you aren't stipulating a single source of external morality.

However, it only covers simple acts of wrong-doing. It's not sufficient to explain serious wickedness. For that you need a way to remove/ignore the
guilt associated with values violation. You need someone to believe they are ultimately doing good, that any wrongs they may commit are justified by
a greater goal. For that you need self-delusion where they are not "rejecting objective code" but incorrectly weighting the importance of objective
rules (i.e. promoting some values while demoting others).

an infant is a tyrant.
they want what they want when they want it.
they think they are the center of the world.
that the world revolves around them.

They only value what they want, regardless of others.

they are taught to not throw food,
potty trained, share toys,
do not bite or hit or scratch.

those are all EXTERNAL VALUES which are not
inherently or naturally present in the infant.

Some infants/children are more
difficult to teach these external
values to and parents get tired,
give up, or are themselves amoral
or not even there and the children
stop acclimating external values and morals.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.